Case Information
*1 Honorable J. A. Hill, President
West Texas State Teachers College
Canyon, Texas Dear sir: opinion No. O-1273
Re: Constructian of Senate Bills Nos. 28and 393, relating to the authority of various governing boards of institutions of higher learning to erect buildings and Issue bonds for the liquldsticn of the indebtedness incurred.
We have your letter of August 12, in which you rauest our opinion on the several Questicms propounded, the first of which is-
Does the Board of Regents of the Texas State Teachers Colleges have authority, tmder either or b&h of the above laws, to Issue bonds for the erection of the various Apes of buildings and facilities usually found on college campuses? If not, towhattype of buildings is the Board restricted@?"
In our opinion Senate Bill#393 expressly snd by implication authorizes the erection of buildings and facilities usually found on college campuses. The statute before us doesznot expressly limit the construction of buildings to that $ype but enumerates such buildings as dormitorigs, kitchens, dining halls, hospitals, libraries, activity buildings, gymnasia, athletic buildings, stadiq and such other buildings as may be needed for the good of the in- -- --vv stitution and the moral welfare and social conduct of the students of stih --- -- -- institutions, all of which we thm indicates the intent to be that only such buildings as are commonly found on campuses are authorized to be cm- strutted. authorizes the erection, completion and equipping of dormi-
#,oies, cottagas or stadiums, which likewise are generally found on college campuses. The only express restriction appearing in either of the two bills is thst suchI&&iings must be revenue produca and selfliquidating. Senate Bill#28, which provides for the erection of "cottages" does not define the term and we must assume under the rules of statutory construction that only such cottages as are essential to the furtherance of the nu.M)ses ofthe Institution are Intended to be authorized under this bill.
Honorable J. A. Hill, page #2 (O-1273)
Pour second question is -
"If the Board has such authority, does the '25s of the local fund' clause apply to all such buildings or to those only which arementioned in Section 1 of Senate Bill #28?" Section 3 of #28 expressly authorizes the Board to issue their obligations in such sum or sums and upon such terms and conditions as to said Board may seem advisable: for the erection, completion and aquipping of such dormitories, cottages and stadiums, and to pledge the net rents, fees, revenues and incomes therefrom to the payment of the interest and princi~el of said obligations. Section 1 thereof expressly provides that in the event the revenues derived from such improvements are insufficient to meet the annual debt requirements, then and in that event the funds may be supplemented from local funds notexceeding 2% for:~apyflscdlyear. It is clear to us thXXeXiGority to use any part of the local funds for the p$+xe of paying obligations incurred under the aut.Gyais bill, aDplies only to such buildings as are authorized under Senate Bill #28. It is well settled that where the language of a statute clearly and distinctly reveals the legislative Intent, there is no authorization to look elsewhere for the interpertation of such statute. The courts have held that the legislative intent in the pessage of an Act can not be acmstrued against npecific language used in the Act. See McCall vs. Lewis, 263 S. W.'325; Moody vs. San Saba County Water Control& Improvement District Ho. 1, 293 S. W. 845.
You are, therefore, advised that in our opinion the authorization to use *25$ of the local funds" for the purpose of supplementing funds pledged to the payment of bonds authorized under this title applies only to buildings which are mentioned in Section 1 of Senate BU #28.
T" third question which m propound is as follows:
"Since the contents of Section 2 of Senate Bill #28 are not recited or referred to in the caption of the bill, is this section valid?" A careful reading of the captjLm:.of Senate Bill reveals that the subject nmtter of.Section 2 is unquestionably omitted therefrom. Speaking generally, a title should be neither broader nor narrower than the body of the Act, but the fact that the title IS narrower does not render the Act void, unless the omission is such as to render the title misleading as to that which is actually contained in the enactment. See Imrery vs. Red Cab Company, 262 S. W. 147; Ex partewhite, 198 S. W. 583. In this instance we find that the body of the bill presents a subject matter which is in narise treated in the caption thereof. The caption expressly enumerates dormitories, cottages or stadiums which are buildings of a class entirely distinct from museums, library buildings or the general words following "such other buildings as may be deemed necessary." In applying the doctrine ejusdem *3 Honorable J. A. Hill, page #3 (O-1273)
generis, that Is, where general words follow specific words, the general words used are descriptive of the subjects treated by the previously used specific words. We think, therefore, that the title of Senate Bill #28 is at wariance with the subject of the legislation and it has been held that the title and the body of an Act must deal with the same subject matter and maniifest the same legislative intent and purpose. See Commonwealth Insurance Company vs. Finegold, 183 5. W. 833. The courts have further held that a title is deceptive when it imports a subject different from that which the Act relates and it would, therefore, be misleading if the body of the Act contained subject matter that was not included in the title. We do not think that this is an inmaterial or unimportant discrepency between the title and the body, and are of the opinion that such discrepancy is fatal to the validity of Section 2 of Senate Bill #28.
Having therefore concluded that Section 2 is invalid, we do not think it necessary to go further inlbo your questions relating to that Section of the Act.
We must point out that Section 11 thereof provides in pert that "should any section or provision * * * be held Invalid, It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that the remaining section * * * shall not be affected thereby but will rein effective after omitting such invslid provisions or parts."
Trusting that the foregoing satisfactorily answers your letter, we are
BePy truly yours ATTORNEY CEWEBALOFTEEAS~ s/ Clarence E. Crowe m
Clarence E. Crowe Assistant cRc:s
Amov~D AUG. 26, 1939
.a/ Gerald C. M.%M
ATTCBWEI CZEEBALOFTEXAS
APPBCVEB OPINION Cm
BY B. W. B.
CHAIRMAN